Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Nody · 21-11-2023 11:36pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121398347#Comment_121398347

Yes but the text of the clause specifies that you need to have taken an oath as a member of congress, officer of the United States or as a member of a State legislature. The president is not a member of congress or State legislature which leaves the question if the president is considered an officer of the United States to meet the requirements for disqualification; because if he's not considered an officer then the clause fails on the fact that the presidential oath is not a listed requirement for disqualification (only the other types of oaths). The assumption of the founders was that no one would become a president directly; they would have worked their way up and hence naturally meet said requirement but as many other things in the constitution it's not taking in has happened today. Hence while Trump led an insurrection the presidential oath is not listed as one of the oaths (or rather the president is not listed as one of the roles to be exact) to be taken to disqualify you from the role of president (because it was not called out); that's basically the crux for the Supreme court to consider (and gives them the wiggle room to read it literally to claim presidential oath is not listed and hence Trump can lead an insurrection and still be legible as president).

aloyisious · 22-11-2023 12:55am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121398433#Comment_121398433

So, if the USSC [or any of the courts below it in the courts hierarchy] decides that the term "officer of the US" included in the amendment clause was understood in law at the time it was passed into law included an "office-holder" [such as office of the Presidency of the US] and STILL TO THIS DAY refers to and includes any person [who at any time swore or affirmed loyalty to the constitution in order to lawfully gain or hold the office of the US Presidency] includes the defendant Donald J Trump Senior, then Donald J Trump senior will have to be found liable for trial under the 14th amendment by the USSC.

As Donald J Trump swore [or affirmed] the oath of presidential office to the constitution of the US [audio and visual recorded] when it was read to him by the Chief Justice of the USSC, that fact cannot be read back to have an alternative meaning or understanding by the Chief Justice or his colleagues on the USSC Bench. The only exit from that recorded fact is if Trump [or his present lawyers] state/s that he did not mean what he said while being sworn-in as President. His oath of office was made totally voluntarily to the US as a whole so he can be held to that oath, unless he recants to it.

Nody · 22-11-2023 7:29am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121398679#Comment_121398679

In short yes; and then it comes down to state level of who's allowed to enforce that ruling (there's a reason why it was submitted in Colorado as a state) and secondary to that if the elected electors can vote differently anyway (state dependent).

His counter argument would be three fold in it's main gist I'd guess based on his appeals etc.

He thought he was the rightful president; hence he was upholding his oath to the USA to protect the nation
He did not actually lead an insurrection; that was the act of other people who read to much into what he said / protected speech
The presidential oath is not listed as requirement for the amendment; hence he never fulfilled the requirements of the 14th amendment anyway

Of the three I think the Supreme Court will veasel out based on the third point; they have consistently changed from literal to spiritual versions of the constitution no matter their own claims to match their political views and I don't see Roberts having the guts to go against Trump (he'd be the swing vote most likely).

ohnonotgmail · 22-11-2023 9:52am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121398433#Comment_121398433

I was confused because the presidential oath posted was incorrect

aloyisious · 22-11-2023 1:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121398874#Comment_121398874

I agree with your opinion on what his counter arguments would be to any charges brought against him. The only thing to upset the cart would be if he disagreed with his legal teams opinions and defence scheme and did his own thing. Oh, for that to happen....

The first point [he thought he was the president] would be a furtherance of the original con job he pulled on the GOP voters. Unfortunately he knew the figures didn't add up, hence his attempt to fiddle the tally figures in various states and browbeat his V/P into failure of office duty at the reading of the result into congress record.

The second point on leading the insurrection is true in a physical sense as he didn't walk down to the Capitol with the other insurrectionists despite telling them he would do so. If only he had walked the walk, he'd have done the US a great service. Instead he went back to the White House to watch the events unfold on TV. The great unknown is whether his retreat to the W/House was of his own volition or the act of his security detail.

The third point is definitely a get out for his friends on the USSC bench as they are not answerable to anyone. That allows them great latitude when it comes to their deciding that his holding the office of the President does not mean or indicate he is an officer of the US. Neither does the fact it's the highest office in the US for which he was in receipt of a salary.

Quin_Dub · 22-11-2023 1:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121399858#Comment_121399858

The third point is definitely a get out for his friends on the USSC bench as they are not answerable to anyone. That allows them great latitude.

In theory it does indeed allow them some latitude insofar as they can't be fired if they aren't playing ball , but sadly given what we now know about how much of their lifestyles are funded by outside interests there are other ways in which they could be "encouraged" to decide a certain way.

aloyisious · 22-11-2023 3:24pm

I can't imagine that Don Trump is as giving as Ben Dunne, though he could be using voters private donations to keep others in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. Another set of money trails to follow in accountancy world.

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-11-2023 5:21pm

I see that the gag order has been reinstated on Trump, tonight's rants on Truth social should be fun.

https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1730258057932796005?t=TKgwBK6yYnH14I-AGn5D-w&s=19

Nody · 30-11-2023 5:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121438456#Comment_121438456

I'm happily surprised honestly; based on the initial hearings and feedback I was expecting the order to be reduced in scope but remain in play as noted by the judges it would limit what he could answer in a political debate potentially. Now we get to see if the Supreme court will touch it (because you know an appeal is coming...).

Quin_Dub · 01-12-2023 5:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121438456#Comment_121438456

He already did it.

Reposted a bunch of crazy allegations about Engorons wife - claiming that some anonymous Anti-Trump **** poster on Twitter is actually her (HINT - It isn't).

Laura Loomer is the source of this claim which should tell you all you need to know..

Nody · 01-12-2023 6:38pm

Poor Trump, turns out that as president you're not immune to everything under the law...

Former President Donald Trump can be sued in civil lawsuits related to the January 6, 2021, US Capitol riot in a long-awaited, consequential decision from the federal appeals court in Washington, DC.

The opinion, written by Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, states that not everything a president does or says while in office is protected from liability.

The president “does not spend every minute of every day exercising official responsibilities,” the opinion said. “And when he acts outside the functions of his office, he does not continue to enjoy immunity. … When he acts in an unofficial, private capacity, he is subject to civil suits like any private citizen.”

Trump moved to dismiss the lawsuits against him on several grounds, including presidential immunity, which the DC District Court rejected, saying that the former president’s actions in the lead-up to the riot at the US Capitol riot were all an effort to remain in office and not official functions of his presidency.

The district court did find that Trump was protected by presidential immunity from the claim that he failed to stop to the riot, saying that he would be acting in his official presidential powers in that instance.

The appeals court opinion on Friday distinguished between campaign speech a president seeking reelection might make and official actions of the presidency.

Trump had argued in court he was immune for anything he said while president, but the court found that is not the case – specifying that the January 6 Trump rally that preceded the riot at the Capitol is potentially part of his campaign.

Glencarraig · 01-12-2023 9:23pm

I see The Chump is in more bother with the judges. He apparently transferred 40 million dollars to pay taxes !!!! and what he had to lodge to pay the damages awarded to E. Jean Carroll without informing his financial examiner appointed by the courts. They have now made it very difficult for him by tightening up the powers of the examiner.

aloyisious · 02-12-2023 12:57am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121442870#Comment_121442870

Is LL still banned from twitter and/or using Truth Social as a broadcast station? Edit; Ignore my question, I see that the X factor intervened after he bought Twitter and gave her account back to her.

aloyisious · 02-12-2023 12:17pm

I'm taking it for granted that the GOP will have a replacement for George Santos well lined-up and cued for a new role in New York. How soon will the next election be to get an accurate read on how the current status of Trumpism has affected the feelings of the New York voters?

Can any outcome damaging to the GOP then be read properly to be a comment on the leading GOP figure running for the presidency? Will a tidal effect swamp his boat?

I'm expecting that despite any negative result for the GOP and [as a result] for Trump, he will carry on as usual and brush it off as fake news and of no consequence on his platform.

Podge_irl · 02-12-2023 2:39pm

It will be a special election in a district Biden carried and the NY Democratic party will presumably not be as incompetent as they were in the last election.

Not sure much can be read into a D win in the seat.

Nody · 02-12-2023 7:17pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121445128#Comment_121445128

Santos was more a fluke exception at a time when the NY Ds there did an unusually terrible job than anything else; anything but a D coming out from the special election would be seen as a miracle.

Rjd2 · 02-12-2023 9:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121446270#Comment_121446270

New York Dems can be useless more often than not tbf.

Genuinely shocking and obviously somewhat funny how this guy was not rumbled before he ran, going to be a hell of a movie in a few years!

Regarding replacing him, all these special elections matter but when it comes to 2024 Trump has a big section of the party who are only trump, does not matter how much others cosplay as MAGA they only will come out for Trump. Its what makes 2024 so tricky to predict sadly.

aloyisious · 02-12-2023 10:23pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121446620#Comment_121446620

When a party chooses some-one like Trump as head of party, it opened the door for carpetbaggers and other liars like Santos.

Trumpism as a creed seems to be as necessary an item for an adult GOP voter to have as much as a GOP membership. The insanity of a creed like that being thought necessary to a party is a reflection on the mental health of the GOP party. One can only hope it's another transmittable creed that surgery, as practiced in Europe some decades past, can cut out of the body politic.

Trump's lawyer saying that his client should not face trial in Georgia and other US states for offences under state laws, not federal laws, next year if he wins the election because it would prevent him from carrying out his presidential duties is more of that creed. It's a de facto recognition by the lawyer that his client is likely to be found guilty of [as the common expression says] multiple offences under state laws which Trump could not sweep aside under a blanket self-pardon.

aloyisious · 03-12-2023 10:48pm

In part of his comments on what's happening in the GOP, speaker Johnson disagreed with what happened to Rep Santos as he had not been tried in court. Like it or not, he seems to disagree with the large number of other GOP Reps who voted to expel Santos from the house and cause the NY Governor to find a replacement for Santos via a special election.

If that's his position on Santos after that person was found to have lied to their party Reps, voters and funders, it doesn't take much to work out what his position is on the more senior RINO living in Florida.

aloyisious · 07-12-2023 12:14am

Has the stress of the situation Trump has landed himself in since 2020 started to upset his balance and reading of things presently? He seems to have made some verbal gaffes over the past few days, similar to the errors he regularly accuses Biden of making.

His affairs of court are a separate matter, something he hasn't quite got around to yet claiming he's an expert on.

Nody · 08-12-2023 3:38pm

Another 2020 elector conspirator flips but I'm sure Trump don't know who he is or has in any way worked with him...

The pro-Trump lawyer who helped devise the 2020 fake electors plot and already pleaded guilty to the conspiracy in Georgia is now cooperating with Michigan and Wisconsin state investigators in hopes of avoiding more criminal charges, multiple sources told CNN.

Kenneth Chesebro, was at the center of efforts by former President Donald Trump to subvert the Electoral College and overturn his defeat – Chesebro is now helping investigators in at least four states who are looking into the scheme.

Timberrrrrrrr · 11-12-2023 3:18pm

Rudyard in court today to find out how much his lies are going to cost him, hopefully somewhere in the Alex Jones regio

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1734204422702395442?t=SLRyHsSXfPDoR9-8dYLvhg&s=19

Brussels Sprout · 11-12-2023 4:00pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121464730#Comment_121464730

He's definitely lost a step in terms of his mental sharpness. I am very curious to see how he will be managed next year. So far he's either doing softball interviews with the likes of Sean Hannity or doing rallies in front of adoring fans. Even in those forums he goes off an absolutely crazy rambling tangents and makes stupid slip-ups.

I don't believe that his team will want him to debate Joe Biden next year. Having them next to each other for 90 minutes will make it obvious that Trump is at least, if not worse, than Biden when it comes to age-related mental decline. The question is will Trumps ego allow him to duck them. He ducked the Republican debates but that's because he was so far ahead that there was no downside to that. He's not going to be 40 points ahead of Biden though and ducking those debates will look weak instead of strong.

Quin_Dub · 11-12-2023 4:17pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121482952#Comment_121482952

It won't be that high given there's only 2 "injured parties" but it's certainly going to be several million each for the two women and Rudi doesn't have the proverbial pot to piss in right now and no one is going to bank-roll him least of all Trump.

Rjd2 · 11-12-2023 4:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121483267#Comment_121483267

Megyn Kelly was openly questioning Trump's mental capabilities the other day, it wasn't the most aggressive but he lost the plot on truth social and obviously if Kelly who is a hardcore Republican can spot it then so can anyone.

Skipping the primary debates was a good idea, because I think all of the candidates bar Vivek and to a lesser extent Scott would have gone for his throat and he would not have been comfortable whatsoever.

I don't think he will duck the Biden debates though, even if he wants to secretly. The base will never desert him but their is a lot of undecided voters out their who are keen on neither who won't tolerate him skipping them.

Nody · 11-12-2023 8:41pm

Well this is going to be an interesting appeal to see...

Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Donald Trump has any immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – the first time that the high court will weigh in on the historic prosecution of the former president.

Smith’s team has asked the court to review district Judge’s Tanya Chutkan ruling that as a former president, Trump is not immune from the election subversion prosecution case brought in Washington DC. Lawyers for the former president have argued that Trump’s alleged actions over the 2020 election results were part of his official duties at the time and therefore he is protected by presidential immunity.

If the SC rules against Trump I expect the mother of all rants to happen; if they rule for him then I'd expect some of the other cases will fall as well; will be interesting to see if SC has the cohones to actually rule on it and if so how they rule.

Quin_Dub · 12-12-2023 12:50am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121484299#Comment_121484299

They've taken up the case on an accelerated schedule - Trumps lawyers must respond by the 20th of December.

Frankly if they rule for Trump in this instance then the US is over as a Democracy - Basically they would be saying that as long as a President had control over 41% of the Senate, thereby protecting themselves from Impeachment they can basically commit any crime they like with absolute impunity - ~Including refusing to leave Office after losing an Election.

amandstu · 12-12-2023 1:09am

Is part of Jack Smith's rationale that he may get this whole thing heard before the General election?

Is he in part just trying to speed up the process whereas it seems in Trump's interest to slow it down?

Quin_Dub · 12-12-2023 1:17am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121485251#Comment_121485251

Bit of both - This issue was always going to end up in the Supreme Court , but Trump would have slow walked it through every stage of the appeals process before getting there.

This basically removes 6-9 months of Trumps delaying tactics and on the assumption that the Supreme court agree that a President does not have "absolute immunity" then it potentially allows for the case to move ahead in March as currently planned.

However , if Trump loses this appeal he'll conjure up many many more spurious arguments to try to delay the case until after the Election.

Sam Russell · 12-12-2023 1:28am

Could the SCOTUS decide, as part of their judgement, to rule Trump is unfit for office if he is convicted of the offences in Georgia, or in any state?

Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Comments